The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

I just returned from a conference for science writer types who represented all spokes on the science-writing wheel: journalists, public information officers, educators, researchers, freelancers, and librarians. One thing we spend a lot of time yakking about is how to take on the seemingly intractable problem of what we often call "science denialism," the naysayers and doubters who don't buy the science on, for example, global warming, vaccines, genetically modified organisms, or, we learned, feral cats. Cat people are ... passionate.

A segment of a social network (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One step toward de-alienation would probably be to stop referring to this pushback as "denialism." The issues are complex, but people's motivations in pushing away scientific findings arise from any number of factors, and sheer cussedness about science in general isn't necessarily one of them. In fact, more often than not, many who take arms against scientific consensus turn to science themselves to do so.

Previously at this blog, I asked "Where do you get your science?" That question arose from a report that newspapers are axing their science news departments, but it also might have had the wrong focus. I get my science online, but that's because I live online in a community of people who do or communicate science. What if you don't? Where does your scientific information come from? My answer: Your social networks, in real life and online, and the sources that prevail in those networks.

After listening and reading, I've determined that when it comes to softening resistance to scientific consensus--not 'denialism'--the worst possible thing to do is to act like you are Science with a capital S, speaking from on high to the little people who just don't get it. People who push back against scientific consensus aren't lesser humans somehow, and often, they "get" science quite sufficiently enough. The place to effect change isn't from a pedestal. It's from within the social networks of communities with shared values and ideas.

At the conference I just attended, I helped moderate a discussion on this topic. During the session, I brought up the concept of being the "nerd node" in a social network, the trusted source on science among the people I know, online and off. It's small, it's grassroots, it's incremental. But what if scientists and the science-knowledgeable stepped out of their science-related communities and became trusted nerd nodes in their non-science networks? Could science advocates become the Verizon of science communication, with widespread coverage, node to node, and have a cumulative positive effect?

The key here, regardless of how it's done, is respect for the network itself. No edicts from on high. No pontification about how stupid or ignorant or scientifically illiterate the people are, because often, they really aren't. Respect for the values of the social network, for its traditions and beliefs and deep relationships, is key, I think, to rebuilding trust in science and what science has to say.

Serendipitously, as I pondered these roles for science communicator types within their spheres, a relevant story was published on the New York Times Opinionator blogs. It's about bringing maternal healthcare to Malawi women in ways that don't involve simply passing draconian laws to force them into a safe healthcare setting for childbirth. Indeed, such laws seem to have been largely unsuccessful. So instead, the government, under the guidance of President Joyce Banda, has implemented a new plan, one that relies on longstanding traditions among women in Malawi and on trusted local elders to effect a voluntary change to a safer childbirth situation.

As Courtney E. Martin wrote in her article, "Malawi's Leader Makes Safe Childbirth Her Mission":

If Banda is to succeed (and she is up for reelection in 2014), it will depend, in part, on her government’s ability to harness the country’s true power brokers, Malawi’s 20,000 village chiefs — and sensitize them to the dangers of women giving birth with attendants, while still respecting tribal traditions.

In the end, all of our local and regional traditions are, in some way, tribal. We trust those in our networks and tend to share their values; indeed, research suggests that even when we individually might disagree with a specific stance of our social circle, we tend still to support that stance because we are part of the group. Hammering on people for ignorance or calling them denialists (the latter of which I've done) is not the way to reach minds within the networks.

If shifting those minds to a greater trust in science--and specifically, in scientific consensus--is the goal, we would do well to fall Banda's lead, showing respect for traditions and values and relying on trusted nodes to deliver the messages. In part, I'd say for those of us who do or communicate science, by becoming trusted nodes ourselves.

[Note: I originally misspelled 'resisters' in the title of the post. As entertaining as it would have been had I thought of using the electric-referencing "resistor" while talking about networks and nodes, I did not do that on purpose. The title has been corrected. Thanks to a commenter and someone on Twitter for pointing it out.]